Astrophysicists make me laugh. They are most undisciplined of all the scientific professions. Whenever they see something that does not reconcile with a previously held belief, they make up another belief to explain it. Then they realize the stuff they made up doesn’t really make any sense, when they come to believe something else. So then they go and make up another theory that would explain it, until that notion no longer works. There is no science.

Just like evolutionists, eh?

Still doesn’t explain why galaxies are going outward (away from the Big Bang) at an increasing rate of speed.

jediwebdude on August 4, 2007 at 11:17 PM

If they are indeed going away at an increasing rate of speed (which I don’t really feel any need to refute), it could be because the universe hasn’t stopped accelerating outward yet from the original big bang (assuming there’s any merit to that one, too; though I don’t really have a problem with BB either)…

My theory has always been skeptical of dark matter. I have always wondered if some of these universal constants aren’t actualy functions…of time-since-the-big-bang. Maybe as the universe ages, C slows down hyperbolically from infinite to roughly what it is now (or maybe even eventually to zero as the universe grows infinitely old), and G varies based on certain factors. We aleardy know that very small black holes have gravitaional functions that don’t fall off as the square-of-the-distance, violating one of the basic principles of gravity.

It’s still good theory, though

Only inasmuch as it can’t readily be shot down quickly, and so it lasts a while. But as waws stated above, it can’t be shot dow because it actually isn’t anything yet…

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200707.htm#20070723a

‘Til then I’m not missin’ much.

Tim Burton on August 4, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Thanks I’ve seen the posts. I’ll respond in that thread, but right now I’m a bit busy.

kiakjones on August 5, 2007 at 8:09 AM

I’m not entirely sure what your point was there, though the link and quote you provided does provide a good illustration as to what it means to “theorize” as opposed to “have faith in.” (I’m assuming that was your intent?)

Speaking as a layman, but interested in astrophysics, there are many competing/compelling theories. The dark matter theory stemmed from the observable and calculable differnces between “seen and unseen” matter. There is more matter, in the universe, in the space between celestial bodies than there is in all the celestial bodies in the universe. The “ether”/space between bodies, is where all the red meat is. Another fringe, but compelling theory is the Electric Universe. Too math intensive for my technician brain, but have read some layman friendly articles on it that makes alot of sense. Older generational thinking eventually dies away or is refuted. Regardless, it’s still a great ride.

It’s the exact opposite of faith. Astronomers don’t believe in Dark Matter, they theorize about it.

Blacklake on August 5, 2007 at 2:04 AM

Found this.

In 1933, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky was studying the motions of distant galaxies. Zwicky estimated the total mass of a group of galaxies by measuring their brightness. When he used a different method to compute the mass of the same cluster of galaxies, he came up with a number that was 400 times his original estimate (1). This discrepancy in the observed and computed masses is now known as “the missing mass problem.” Nobody did much with Zwicky’s finding until the 1970′s, when scientists began to realize that only large amounts of hidden mass could explain many of their observations (2). Scientists also realize that the existence of some unseen mass would also support theories regarding the structure of the universe (3). Today, scientists are searching for the mysterious dark matter not only to explain the gravitational motions of galaxies, but also to validate current theories about the origin and the fate of the universe.

Rove, you did it again you magnificent bastard!!

What Einstein had to say about darkmatter/the ether.
MirCat on August 4, 2007 at 11:38 PM

In latching on to this “dark matter” meme, physicists are basically foregoing some fundamental aspects of Einstein’s theories of Relativity and Gravitation.

Einstein’s theories are truly amazing. They explain so very much, and at the same time they are self-limiting: they tell us what they DON’T cover. It’s understandable that physicists want to apply them to (literally) everything until something better comes along. But there is a natural tendency to fixate on what is comfortable, even when it no longer makes any sense to do so.

On a Universal scale, it makes no real sense to talk about gravity as a “force.” It makes at least as much sense (and Einstein believed MORE sense) to consider gravity as a property of space. So it makes no sense whatsoever to blythely assume that the rules will stay the same on a scale where space itself becomes plastic.

Additionally, assuming the “expansion” of the Universe (whatever that really means) follows the rules of Relativity really makes no more sense than assuming it follows the rules of Newtonian physics. The motion of the Universe as a whole can’t possibly be relative to anything else – because there is no external framework for it to be relative TO.

Calling the unknown factor “dark matter” (or even more bizarrely “dark energy”) instead of “Factor U” or some other random name isn’t just a harmless affectation. It tends to focus thinking on the subject – and even more destructively, it also tends to focus funding!

The problem with dark matter is that nobody has come up with a good way to test the theory.

taznar on August 5, 2007 at 1:11 AM

Actually, some idiot is trying to “test” the theory. I’m not making this up; the guy actually set up a “dark matter detector,” and he’s soaking up millions of dollars a year in research grants!

The problem is that there is no way to DISPROVE the existence of something which has essentially no known attributes. It may as well be a boogey man detector – you can never prove they’re not out there.

Since nobody has any clue how big a “particle” (if that term even makes sense) of dark matter is; there is no way to guess how rare they might be. So there is no rational basis for saying whether the test will have to run for one year, a hundred years, or ten milion years. For all practical purposes, the duration is “as long as you idiots keep paying the bills.”

Again, the problem is not with physicists in general. The problem is that public funds are often distributed based on media fads rather than the relative potential for success – or for failure, which is equally as valuable to science.

Absolutely. Thank you.

“The Collapsing Theory” = The universe sucks.

“The Alternating Expansion/Collapsing Theory” = The universe blows and sucks.

I suspect that the “Dark Matter” theory will never make it past stage one.

Scientists can’t see or detect “dark matter” in any direct way. The speculate on its existence based upon how galaxies move. Sure seems they have a lot of… faith.

JinxMcHue on August 5, 2007 at 12:13 AM

What could that possibly have to do with faith? They’re speculating as to a source of gravity, and they don’t insist that it’s true without regard to evidence that challenges the theory.

It’s the exact opposite of faith. Astronomers don’t believe in Dark Matter, they theorize about it.

Nope, you’re not. Many of the other commenters are trying to make something more out of this than there really is

I agree. Keep in mind dark matter was proposed because observable data deviated from what all (then) currently held theories would predict -meaning they were all wrong in some aspect or particular. That doesn’t mean that the theories are without practical use either. Theories we know to be “wrong” or we don’t fully understand are used every day in engineering simply because they describe the system accurately enough for practical use.

For example, not knowing exactly what gravity is and how it works hasn’t stopped us from using the theory of gravity in everything from building chairs that don’t break to sending space probes throughout the solar system.

P.S. I think I even made up a few words.

Now on toppic.

Scientists can’t see or detect “dark matter” in any direct way.

JinxMcHue on August 5, 2007 at 12:13 AM

Yet it’s effects are very noticable. There, of course, is no way to see, messure, etc. it because it is beyond intert. Kind of like the effects of paper on prose.

Examples of how it interacts: Get a pot and swirl the water. Now take a salt shaker and add salt. When the salt collects look at the pattern. Much like a galaxy, even down to the fact that it’s dence in the center and spiral arms form outwards. Also notice that the salt collects in the center, which is counter to centrifugal force. (yes I know it’s a virtual force). . . read what Albert wrote.

- The Cat

Am I missing anything ?

Maxx on August 5, 2007 at 12:36 AM

Nope, you’re not. Many of the other commenters are trying to make something more out of this than there really is. They are taking one of the most uncertain “consensuses” in science and trying to make a parallel with things (evolution, anthropogenic global warming) that actually deserve the word consensus.

Dark matter has always been the place-holder name for something astrophysicists thought was there and spent a lot of time looking for but could not really pin down. A term of exclusion.

“Scientific consensuses” are not the infallible words of God, but this is no reason to believe that the consensus opinion is a poor picture of reality. It’s the best we’ve got and obviously “consensuses” can come in varying degrees based upon how much research has been done on each issue.

And anyway, this matter is far from settled (forgive the pun).

Remember, this guy not only predicted what would happen with an a-bomb, but also what it would look like when it happened. I think he had a pretty good grasp on the motion of particals.

And “that guy” was also quick to point out that all it would take is a single experiment to prove all his theories wrong.

A big part of science is coming up with the best theory possible to explain all the data at hand, then do the best you can to test it and prove it wrong. As I was once told, the only time you really learn something new in science is when you “break” the theory of model.

Having said that, one of the hallmarks of a good theory is that it can be used to make a testable hypothesis/prediction. The problem with dark matter is that nobody has come up with a good way to test the theory.